I thoroughly enjoyed David Mermin’s May 2009 Reference Frame. However, definitions of the terms “abstraction” and “reality” are necessary. Unfortunately, that is an extraordinarily difficult task. I offer here the admittedly naive concepts I employed in attempting to understand his essay.
Reality is that which can be observed; this is, presumably, what Bertrand Russell meant when he stated that the proof of a concept lies in its comparison with reality. Observations, though, don’t always lead to unique interpretations: Entanglement can be fancifully interpreted as action at a distance, when it is really the result of two particles being produced by a single quantum state that requires that they obey the conservation laws applicable to the particular state.
If anything is ever detected, or is prevented from passing between two entangled particles, action at a distance would be confirmed. In the absence of such evidence, I prefer the less exotic explanations.
We humans are attracted to fanciful models that are often more exciting than reality; so I agree with Mermin’s basic premise. But I cannot always be confident of distinguishing a real property from a fanciful abstraction. In fact, if pushed, I would have to admit I’m not sure what a real property really is. Possibly Mermin can enlighten me.
